And yeah, it would've been nice if he didn't have to, but that wasn't the point. He was up against his own kind. A soldier, no less. Just as we have to kill people sometimes, and justifiably so cuz we're limited in our abilities, so did Superman have to make that choice when dealing with someone of equal power who was about to slaughter an innocent family. He made the tough choice. I thought that was a reality that was worth the sacrifice of the classic character, especially in this case with the villain being of the same species. If you're gonna bring up Batman, c'mon. Batman hardly has an equal. Superman wasn't particularly bright in this adaptation, never having actually had the giant "Jor-El teaches us everything" lecture.

Also, I think Jor-El was pretty damn important to the story, considering the villain and his motives. I honestly don't understand what you meant by that. But luckily for you, they left Jor-El's chip inside the ship that was sent into the Phantom Zone, so you won't be seeing him in any sequels as long as the writers stay logical. I realize that's a lot to ask for.

Speaking of a lack of logic, here's what I disliked.

1. Jon Kent did NOT have to die, even for the stupid reason they had. Why the fuck did he go back for the dog while Clark was the one in charge of just casually walking Martha to the overpass? How did that make any sense at all to anyone?

2. All the scientist had to do was shift the thing a bit so it would work? He was laying there for five minutes just looking at it and he came up with that brilliant idea. That was just too lame.

3. At the end, thousands upon thousands of people died, and the city was pretty much completely destroyed, and I'm pretty sure the Daily Planet was included in that mess. How did that nice, clean ending make any sense, along with that guy asking Lois out on a date to a game? Was it many, many years later after people forgot about the loss of lives, the city was repaired, and the local economy recovered? Did we miss a bunch of Superman stuff he'd been doing?

4. The humor was cliche, predictable, and dumb. That last joke in there, with the female soldier, I couldn't help but roll my eyes before she even said her line.

5. Another cliche was that bar scene with the guy slapping the girl's ass. Really? Did we need a Superman movie with that overused trope that only exists to establish that the main character's a good guy that'll stand up for what is right? No. We didn't. It's freakin' Superman. But they still managed to do it poorly anyway. Why didn't he kick him out? How did that make any sense? Clark, man, it's in your right, and kind of your fuckin' responsibility to throw him out for doing things like that to the staff. But no, passive-aggressively destroying his truck was the right thing to do. Sure.

I agree about the flashbacks, I hated them! They ruined the pace for me. Russell Crow seemed like he was just taking the piss. I really, really hated Man of Steel, felt like the people who made it didn't give a shit and I felt a bit insulted.

Watched Man of Steel last night and it was okay. I expected more from Christopher Nolan who had his hands on the project but then again Zack Snyder was the director. I love comic movies and anticipate the cheesiness but nothing about this movie really excited me or made me genuinely laugh along with them. Definitely a lot of eye rolling, facepalming, and wtf laughter. It was entertaining visually and I guess that's all Zack Snyder is really good at, keeping you visually stimulated.

I stayed up late last night and watched Man on the Moon on Netflix. Andy Kaufman seemed fascinating.

He was awesome but I thought that it was a milquetoast portrayal in the movie.

Tuffy wrote:

The hunt for a good Superman movie continues...

Christopher Reeve's Superman and Superman II are good. But, then again, that might just be nostalgia.

Superman (1978) About as perfect as a late-70's Superman could be. It's not just the pinnacle of '78, it's the benchmark for superhero films for decades. The brief silence that followed this film's closing credits was the sound of Hollywood realizing that not only could they film a superhero story with a humanness and realism to it, but that they could do it without the camp and kitsch of the 1966 Batman. The noise following that was the cash pouring in.

Superman II (1980) Hollywood, being Hollywood, immediately panics and tries to reassert the camp and kitsch back into superhero movies. Richard Donner's 75% of Superman II is excellent. That you can almost literally draw a line on the film where Donner's shots end and Lester's shots begin should tell you everything you need to know about sticking with your first instinct, not second-guessing yourself, and not being a pussy.

...

The Man of Steel (upcoming, 2013) There is simply no one living capable of portraying Superman. And no one living is capable of directing him. Not Fincher. Not even Nolan. It's not a question of will they blow it but how badly. Brace yourself.

I have a good writing team. But that's the easy part. I just need a 20 million for special effects, and another 10 for casting and filming costs. I'm pretty sure... I could do it. Superman's hard to write for. I can't promise I'd make the money back from sales, but... dude... true fans would be blown away. Kickstarter it is!

Superman just doesn't have interesting enough villians. There's Lex Luthor who's just mean and rich. Braniac is kind of cool. Bizarro is lame. Mr. Mxplck is a joke. Doomsday was okay. Who else? Whereas Batman has tons of cool cillians to work with. I think that's a big reason Superman movies always fail.

Lex Luthor is the smartest man in the world and represents the best and worst in humanity. I think he's very interesting. As I've said, I think he's a better character than the Joker. He can be the perfect gentleman in one minute, and stab you with an ice pick in the next. No remorse, just like the Joker, but his goals and ambitions make him more relatable. An interesting way to portray him would be to see his slow progression towards violent crime as he has to face a mess of obstacles to get what he wants.

Brainiac kinda sucks as a main villain. I like the whole "destroyer of worlds" thing he's got going for him, but that doesn't leave much room for story.

I hate Doomsday. Oh, tragic past, great. So now he's a brainless killer, so he gets to Earth, half an hour later he's dead along with Superman. K. Again, not much of a story there.

Now the ultimate of the ultimate, Darkseid. THAT'S an interesting character. King of his own world, just as powerful as Superman, a brilliant puppetmaster, a father, and forever seeking the Anti-Life equation to have control over all sentient beings. His followers are tormented by him, but they still worship and adore him. The larger than life, almost literally, idea of him and his ambitions is definitely a scope a Superman story should reach if there's a trilogy in the works. But he's a third film kind of villain.

I like the fact that all Superman's disguise is is a pair of glasses. It's good commentary on how people are so obsessed with their jobs, their phones, their lives, that they miss what's right in front of them.

My vote is for Brainiac as the villain and I take a vote away from Doomsday. Horrible villain that only existed in the first place to make the comic writers rich.

I'm just gonna chalk that up as really advanced surgery skills to keep the magic going in my head.

Yeah... part of me is disappointed... the other part of me is impressed though. There's someone out there who pays more attention to ears in movies than I do to anything in movies.

Liberum69 wrote:

@jes

And I guess you just let us have it.

Yeah, I think we'll be gone pretty soon. I'm gonna try to stick it out for the summer, but I don't know about that either. Gee, if only someone could come down and visit before I leave.

Eh, I lasted even less in that area. I didn't leave because I hated it though. I left because living here is less expensive (just because of school) and I'm terrified by the idea of any debt. I'm a cheapskate, basically. But yeah, home is pretty underrated. If you like your home, I mean.

Man, I'm about as likely or unlikely to visit you in El Paso as anywhere else. I was actually invited to something (either a quinceanera or a wedding) there in a few weeks or months that I probably won't go to. But see, I already have more business in the panhandle than I do in Austin.

That's in the panhandle, right? Googling... what!? The top rectangle thing is the panhandle?? Who the fuck picks up their pans from the top? That's bullshit.

PGoutis01 wrote:

Watching Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. I love this movie. Robert Downey Jr is great in it.

World War Z was underwhelming. It was entertaining, but the realization that led to the final solution made no sense. A few plotholes, too. The first half was very good (although it did have it's "wha?" moments).

World War Z was underwhelming. It was entertaining, but the realization that led to the final solution made no sense. A few plotholes, too. The first half was very good (although it did have it's "wha?" moments).

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.